| Author | Topic |
|---|
Posts: 11
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Sun, 14 November 2004 18:25
|
 |
Hello all !!
So glad to be part of this great forum and of course owning this great game.
I have one question about rules, is it really as easy as rolling a tank for infantry to destroy a armour unit ??
I mean it seems a little to easy for me, I know armour has a range/roll adavntage but the infantry is sure to catch up and be able to destoy a tank with a single roll.
Maybe I read the rules wrong !?!
We are game testing a new rule (if the above mentioned is true)
for infantry to destroy a armour unit they must roll 2 tanks to destroy one unit or 2 grenades. That way not only do tanks have a range/roll advantage but infantry must be close enough to a tank to be able to throw a grenade to kill it.
I guess it will add a little realism to the game and make armour unit a real threat to infantry.
Does anybody else use special "house" rules for there games ??
Thanks
|
|
|
Posts: 165
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
|
|
Posts: 11
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 15 November 2004 00:06
|
|
Good thought..
We have just found it to be a non-realistic rule I guess, not so much by the roll of dice. We will continue playing with standard tules until we have complete all the missions and then re-think our house rules..
Thanks
|
|
|
Posts: 57
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 15 November 2004 05:12
|
|
I think it totally depends on the scale that is implied. If we are talking battalion or division sized infantry units than they would have plenty of anti-tank equipment with them to deal with armor. With Battle Cry I spent a lot of time figuring out figure and ground scale. Sometimes I adjusted ranges for the units based on the ground scale. I plan to work on this for M44 too.
Regards,
Bill
|
|
|
Posts: 1
Registered:
October 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 15 November 2004 17:39
|
|
Grey,
This may seem obvious, but don't forget that armor units have 3 models in them, so infantry would have to eliminate all 3 (4 if the unit is elite.)
-Tomicroll
|
|
|
|
Posts: 11
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Tue, 16 November 2004 01:13
|
|
I fully understand the number of units in play..
I guess I just have a hard time with a dice roll killing tanks.. 
we have played a few games since my first post on this topic and things are working out fine, I simple modified the way I move to always saty at the furthest distance from any infantry.
seems to be working A-OK 
|
|
|
|
Posts: 22
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Tue, 16 November 2004 19:09
|
|
In my first games I also used the armor units at a distance of 3 from the infantery units. But now we start to play differently. One of the main advantages of the armor unit is its overrun combat. Lately we always move armor into close combat to make advantage of this ability.
Iluvatar
|
|
|
|
Posts: 11
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Tue, 16 November 2004 21:16
|
|
Yes I am just changing the way I play, I guess in most games I play armour is a big threat cause most other forces to run in fear ( no dice involved )
Now I am working on moves and a little distance seems to be my best friend when it comes to armour..
thanks for all the great advice and tips
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Thu, 25 November 2004 21:26
|
|
Also, don't forget that historically, tank formations of any nationality tended to be very cautious when attacking without their own infantry in support. The last thing a tanker wanted was to have enemy infantry to his rear. Well-trained and tenacious infantry was (and is still) capable of taking on enemy armor formations, as long as the infantrymen used tactics and terrain to their advantage.
- billtheengineer
|
|
|
|
Posts: 11
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Thu, 02 December 2004 21:14
|
|
You are correct..Gues my "Rollin Thunder" idea was out of line I have since changed the way I play to keep my armour of of site and at a safe distance, really changes the game !!
|
|
|
Posts: 62
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 06 December 2004 12:37
|
|
|
several of the folks I have introduced to this game use a standard wargame approach @ first. The abstract nature of the game just throws them off for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 29 August 2005 00:18
|
|
with my playgroup, we make a little rule change regarding the strength of infantry units vs. armored units.
infantry units firing at non-adjacent armored vehicles miss on a "grenade"
|
|
|
Posts: 205
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 29 August 2005 00:39
|
|
| Grey wrote on Sun, 14 November 2004 12:25 |
Does anybody else use special "house" rules for there games ??
Thanks
|
You can find "Home Rules & Variants" on the FAN SITE under the heading "Articles". Personally I can recommend the house rules Ubergeek (= Walt Mulder) wrote.
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Thu, 01 September 2005 08:08
|
|
|
try engaging your opponents infantry by getting your infantry adjacent to them. leave a line of fire for your tanks. tankers were very wary of engaging in battle without infantry support. the game simulates this fairly well. if infantry can concentrate on tanks (bazooka,anti-tank gun) they can really do some damage.
|
|
|
Posts: 437
Registered:
May 2005
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Sun, 04 September 2005 03:45
|
|
Infantry were very much capable of taking on tanks without support, as the Battle for Arnhem and Pegasus Bridge both demonstrate admirably. I am speaking of the historical battles more so than the battles depicted in this game. THe PIAT and Bazooka were effective weapons for the most part, albeit at short range, and there were also gammon bombs, sticky bombs, and the good ole' pineapple grenade! And don't forget AT mines, of which we will get a taste very soon...
Tanks should be used to soften up enemy positions from a distance, and then rush up to close assault range and "take ground" utilizing the "armor overrun" rule. This is a devestating series of attacks if used correctly. As stated, you will want infantry support as well, so use your cards wisely and plan your moves to make the most of combined-arms assaults.
|
|
|
Posts: 51
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re:Infantry VS Armour is it really that easy ??
|
Mon, 19 September 2005 05:58
|
|
|
As mentioned by other well informed members on this site, WW2 armor was NOT the weapon that could beat all. Really Infantry and Artillery did most of the damage. Armor on it's own in non-open terrain was easy game for infantry. It was excellent in open ground and used as fast flanking and encircling tactics. When used in combined arms tactics with full infantry support they were deadly. But, Infantry still ruled the battlefields.
|
|
|
